The Board Game No One Wants to Play More Than Once

The phrase “board game” usually connotes the likes of ”Monopoly” or “Yahtzee” — fun pastimes for the beach or family outings. But Savannah College of Art and Design professor Brenda Brathwaite has created a game which is far from a trivial pursuit.

Brathwaite created “Train” to explore the tragedy and devastation of the Holocaust. It made its debut last month at the Games for Change conference in New York City. Players load boxcars with tiny yellow figurines and are asked to move the trains from one end of the course to the other. They pull cards that either impede their progress or free some of the characters. Once a train reaches the “finish line,” the game is completed and it is revealed that the destination of the trains is Auschwitz. Nobody “wins.”

Wall Street Journal: How long did it take you to construct “Train”? Could you talk about how you decided on the materials?

Brenda Brathwaite: From initial concept to final build, “Train” was close to a year in development. Much of this was research and letting the dynamics of the project come to the surface. The actual physical building of the game took about two months, most of which was spent sourcing the right materials. For instance, I wanted the window to look like it was from the period. It was also important to me that it have 6 panes. I selected the window as an allusion to Kristallnacht, when the Nazis smashed the windows of the Jews. For the tracks, I went to a local train hobby store [Bull Street Station] and learned how to do it the right way.

Suffice to say, the “right way” evolved after several attempts. The typewriter [a machine once used by the SS which is part of the game] was probably the most significant piece to add to the game. The rules that people followed, the Nazi rules, were horrible rules. They were the system behind the travesty. Selecting the typewriter seemed simultaneously right and horrible. I still am uncomfortable with it. Since the rules of a game are the game, however, I didn’t feel it could be done authentically any other way.

Not all players have the same experiences. I understand that someone who played the game compared it to “Halo”?

Yes, that has happened only once, and it was incredibly surprising to me, to the other players and to the people watching. It is not a common experience. The woman later told me she felt guilty about it, though. I think her callousness was an incredible learning opportunity for all of us. Some people approach the game and see it for what it is immediately, and their reaction is no less visceral than those who play the game. There are those who play all the way until the end and then realize where the trains were going – and it is such a steep drop. People become nauseated. Their faces flush. People have cried. There is always a one-hour period of discussion after (or two hours at MIT).

With that singular “Halo” exception, no one has ever wanted to play again. There is then the second experience, one of watching the game being played. I have watched it dozens of times now, and it still nauseates me when people put the passengers in the cars. I am fascinated when one player figures it out – puts it together – and suddenly stops his or her progression toward the end and instead works diligently to thwart everyone else. This player will often immediately request the rules wondering how he or she can subvert the system to save everyone. The dynamics of the experience are fascinating, moving and emotional for everyone, me included.

Is that hard for you as a game designer to have a strong message and yet watch some players miss the point?

No, because the games, particularly Train, have taken on a life of its own. I think all outcomes are valid outcomes. The “Halo” player brought us a stronger point, I think. That point is that there’s still a lot of work to be done in educating people about what happened. It showed me and others the strength of my feelings. I think a game hits a high point when it provokes reactions the designer doesn’t expect. In some cases, the message may only be powerful for me.

Why do you think games are a good medium for approaching difficult periods of history such as the Holocaust? I’d imagine some could argue that making a game trivializes the subject matter.

They could and have argued that, but it doesn’t. It makes it extremely powerful, and I haven’t shown the subject any disrespect. I’ve created an experience through interactivity, much like museums have created an experience through the use of image and sound and space. I think games are a good medium for approaching any subject, particularly difficult ones, because by their very nature, they are abstract, invite interaction and allow us to confront and question things… particularly rules that we may blindly follow.

A game is all I know. I don’t work in another medium. I saw the power that it had when I used a game to teach my daughter about the Middle Passage. So I don’t see it as something that trivializes. Rather, I see it as the medium finally reaching a new potential.

Do you think the public has a narrow definition for the term “game”? I’d assume most people associate the term with having fun.

We’ve learned that game = fun. So, yes, we have a narrow definition for it, but I believe that definition is expanding. As an artist working in this medium, I want it to expand. Imagine if someone said all books or movies or paintings had to be fun? A game is an interactive experience which has goals, a clear end and a set of rules. I think anyone who considers the systems that are presented in my series will see the full potential of games to explore the human experience. If you consider something like Risk seriously, how fun is that? It’s only fun because we’re able to abstract the domination and destruction. In Train, that’s nearly impossible.

As a note, I never once refer to Train as a game in the rules, and I also never refer to the participants as players.

Have you had any negative responses to the game?

Some, but not a lot. There have been some strong reactions purely based on the subject matter and the medium, but those generally dissipate when people hear about the series overall, as well as the design of the game. I can completely understand each and every one of those reactions. As people consider Train and the series, and see the dynamics and the moral and ethical questions it raises, they generally change. Abe Stein’s experience (MIT) is typical for those who are initially critical.

Ultimately, I think the power of a game lies in its ability to bring us close to the subject. There is no other medium that has this power. I saw people cry over Train, not just once, but multiple times. People watching, playing, those trying to save the passengers. That’s powerful, and its the medium that does that. It’s my medium, sure, but its power humbles me still. I’ve talked quite a bit with Jewish educators about Train and how it can be used in education, and I am excited about the possibilities there.

From initial concept to final build, Train was close to a year in development. Much of this was research and letting the dynamics of the project come to the surface. The actual physical building of the game took about two months, most of which was spent sourcing the right materials. For instance, I wanted the window to look like it was from the period. It was also important to me that it have 6 panes. I selected the window as an allusion to Kristallnacht, when the Nazis smashed the windows of the Jews. For the tracks, I went to a local train hobby store (Bull Street Station) and learned how to do it the right way. Suffice to say that the “right way” evolved after several attempts. The typewriter was probably the most significant piece to add to the game. The rules that people followed, the Nazi rules, were horrible rules. They were the system behind the travesty. Selecting the typewriter seemed simultaneously right and horrible. I still am uncomfortable with it. Since the rules of a game are the game, however, I didn’t feel it could be done authentically any othe way.

You mentioned that there was a photo that you meditated on? Where did you find the photo and what did you think about

Oh my goodness. Yeah, that photo. I suppose to tell you about it, I have to go find it again and look at it. Wow. It still makes me tear up. http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/u/u/uup101/2boyswithstars.jpg
I would look at this picture and think of my own kids. I would think of the mother who made the fabric stars that they wore. I would think of the kids having fun, unaware of what was to come. I would think of my kids and how I would feel as their mom. I thought of them asking people where their mommy and daddy were. It still completely fucks me up looking at this pic, Jamin, and I would look at it for long lengths of time. I can see it in my head without even trying. As a mom of three kids, this picture just goes right to the core with me. Why didn’t we stop this from happening?
There were many photos I looked at. Many. Tons of reading. I mean, I do that for every game I work on, and it would have been cheating if I’d done it any other way. It would have been particularly agregious since this material is so sensitive.

Not all players have the same experiences. I understand that someone playing the game compared it to “Halo”?

Yes, that has happened only once, and it was incredibly surprising to me, to the other players and to the people watching. It is not a common experience. The woman later told me she felt guilty about what it, though. I think that callousness was an incredible learning opportunity for all of us. There are many experiences that people have playing Train. Some people approach the game and see it immediately, and there reaction is no less visceral than those who play the game. There are those who play all the way until the end and then realize where the trains were going – and it is such a steep drop. People become nauseated. Their faces flush. People have cried. There is always a 1 hour period of discussion after (or 2 hours at MIT). With that singular “Halo” exception, no one has ever wanted to play again. There is then the second experience, one of watching the game being played. I have watched it dozens of times now, and it still nauseates me when people put the passengers in the cars. I am fascinated when one player figures it out – puts it together – and suddenly stops his or her progression toward the end and instead works diligently to thwart everyone else. This player will often immediately request the rules wondering how he or she can subvert the system to save everyone. The dynamics of the experience are fascinating, moving and emotional for everyone, me included.

Is that hard for you as a game designer to have a strong message and yet watch some players miss the point?

No, because the games, particularly Train, has taken on a life of its own. I think all outcomes are valid outcomes. The “halo” player brought us a stronger point, I think. That point is that there’s still a lot of work to be done in educating people about what happened. It showed me and others the strength of my feelings. I think a game hits a high point when it provokes reactions the designer doesn’t expect. In some cases, the message may only be powerful for me.

Why do you think games are a good medium for approaching difficult periods of history such as the Holocaust? I’d imagine some could argue that making a game trivializes the subject matter.

They could and have argued that, but it doesn’t. It makes it extremely powerful, and I haven’t shown the subject any disrespected. I’ve created an experience through interactivity, much like the museums have created an experience through use of image and sound and space. I think games are a good medium for approaching any subject, particularly difficult ones, because by their very nature, they are abstract, they invite interaction, they allow us to confront and question things… particularly rules that we may blindly follow.

A game is all I know. I don’t work in another medium. I saw the power that it had when I used a game to teach my daughter about the Middle Passage. So, I don’t see it as something that trivializes. Rather, I see it as the medium finally reaching a new potential.

Do you think the public has a narrow definition for the term “game”? I’d assume most people assume “frivolities” like hopscotch or checkers i.e. they need to be fun.

We’ve learned that game = fun. So, yes, we have a narrow definition for it, but I believe that definition is expanding. As an artist working in this medium, I want it to expand. Imagine if someone said all books have to be fun or movies or paintings? A game is an interactive experience which has goals, a clear endstate and a set of rules. I think anyone who considers the systems that are presented in my series will see the full potential of games to explore the human experience. I hope so. If you consider something like Risk seriously, how fun is that? It’s only fun because we’re able to abstract the domination and descruction. In Train, that’s nearly impossible.
As a note, I never once refer to Train as a game in the rules, and I also never refer to the participants as players.

Have you had any negative responses to the game?

Some, but not a lot. There have been some strong reactions purely based on the subject matter + the medium, but those generally dissapate when people hear about the series overall as well as the design of the game. I can completely understand each and every one of those reactions. As people consider Train and the series, as they see the dynamics and the moral and ethical questions it raises, they generally change. Abe Stein’s experience (MIT) is typical for those who are initially critical. http://www.stein-sound.com/Stein-Sound.html.
Ultimately, I think the power of a game lies in its ability to bring us close to the subject. There is no other medium that has this power. I saw people cry over Train, not just once, but multiple times. People watching, playing, those trying to save the passengers. That’s powerful, and its the medium that does that. It’s my medium, sure, but its power humbles me still.
I’ve talked quite a bit with Jewish educators about Train and how it can be used in education, and I am excited about the possibilities there.